Documentation and Proofs - Family History & Genealogy Message Board

Re: Which is more likely accurate, marriage license or death certificate?

Gumpo1946 — 2013-05-22 03:26:31Z

Marriage license they sometimes lie about their age so they can marry without parental consent. Death notices can be wrong because the "informant" might be guessing and rather than say I don't know they pull a number out of the air just to get it over with. Not saying this is the case, but I have also found where rather than ASK the census taker just put down what their guess was. That is why people are listed with their nicknames in the early census', after all the census taker was their neighbor, he might have filled in the report from home and never talked to Mr & Mrs Jones, and even if they did Mr & Mrs Jones might not have been able to read what they put down to double check their work. My aunt Minnie was a hired girl all summer long from the time she was 9 until she finished school and then got married and that was in the early 1920's. She worked out Monday-Friday came home on Saturday, ironed her sisters petticoats (because she did such a good job), went to church with the family on Sunday and after Sunday dinner she went back to her "job" so she would be there to help prepare breakfast for the other family Monday morning. She was the oldest of 8 children and her father was the school teacher.

Re: Place of Birth Dilemma

rickathedj — 2013-04-14 17:16:04Z

I am tending to give the most credence to my grandfather's birth certificate. I'm guessing that my great grandfather was probably the one giving the information. But the more of this I do, the more I'm tending to make notes to go along with the documents. When I first started, I had no idea how many, and how large, the discrepancies could be. Even though I'm only in my early 50s, I'm already thinking of the day that a box will be handed off to a younger relative, and I may or may not be there to explain things.

Re: Place of Birth Dilemma

Hopeful_Helper — 2013-04-14 13:36:45Z

The earliest census records should be the most accurate, but perhaps your great grandfather's marriage certificate will give you the information you need.

Always take death certs. with a grain of salt. The person giving the information may not have been related and, if it was a relative, they may have been overcome with grief.

HH

Place of Birth Dilemma

rickathedj — 2013-04-13 00:10:43Z

According to census records, my great grandfather William Henry Armstrong, was born in either New York or New Jersey; it goes back and forth. My grandfather's birth certificate says his father was born in New York. I just got William Henry Armstrong's death certificate, and it says he was born in Bayridge, New Jersey. But try as I might, I can't find a Bayridge IN New Jersey. There is, however, one in New York.

So what do I put in the tree? This may seem a little picky, but I'm striving for accuracy. Some day all of my work will be passed on to someone else and I don't want to leave any mysteries.

Re: Comparing Signatures

daharlow1 — 2013-04-04 00:40:37Z

The JPG is attached. Number 1 is the signature on the Vicksburg parole (1863). 2 (1882) and 3 (1867) are from marriage licenses. 4 (1873), 5 (1870), 6 (1869), and 7 (1869) are from land transfer documents.

I can confirm that 4-7 refer to J E Jones as James E Jones within the document. The name of the person being married in 2 & 3 is James Edward Jones. Are all of these the same person? Number 3 is not signed by the same person, but it represents the same person as number 2. Did someone other than the groom often sign marriage licenses?

Dave

Re: Comparing Signatures

Hopeful_Helper — 2013-04-03 14:09:59Z

You can attach a JPG.

HH

Comparing Signatures

daharlow1 — 2013-04-01 20:58:54Z

If anyone out there considers himself or herself to be good at comparing signatures, then I’d like you to take a look at some signatures and give me your opinion on which ones match.

I am trying to connect the J. E. Jones that signed his military parole upon his surrender at Vicksburg (first signature on the attachment) with the J. E. Jones listed on two marriage licenses (second and third). I know the person on marriage licenses is the same person, but their signatures clearly do not match.

I also have various signed legal documents, though I can't yet say for sure if that J. E. Jones is the J. E. Jones that I'm looking for. The full name of J. E. Jones is James Edward Jones. Some of the legal documents address him with more than just initials, and all of them are in the right place at the right time.

Speaking of the non-matching signatures on the marriage licenses, is it common for other people to sign a marriage license on behalf of the groom?

I apparently can't attach a .doc, .docx or .pdf to this posting, so reply to me and I can e-mail the signature samples to you.

Re: Which is more likely accurate, marriage license or death certificate?

Hopeful_Helper — 2013-04-01 12:03:11Z

I would say that a marriage license is likely to be more accurate, since the people involved provided the information. Information on the death certificate is given by survivors -- sometimes people who are not related -- who may not have accurate information.

HH

Which is more likely accurate, marriage license or death certificate?

Fowler5000 — 2013-03-30 19:41:44Z

You'd think both, but when they can't be, like here...

My gg-grandmother Maggie/Margaret Brady is causing confusion - partly because of the culture at the time.]

She was last of 11 children who came over from Ireland in 1873. The father died in 1875. It's not unusual, of course, for children to have taken jobs are servants - they were still quite poor, and living in Canton, OHioo at the time. Herein lies the question.

The 1880 census lists her as servant to a Tyler family, aged 19; with a daughter age 18 finishing up school it's plausible the census taker figured the girls were about the same age if they were seen together. This makes perfect sense and is in keeping with family history of her eventually working at the Onesta Hotel, a big hotel in Canton, while raising her family.

The marriage license to John J. Fitzpatrick has her listed as "over 18" & a birth date of 1864. But, people can lie about their ages there, too, and if she was a bit bigger than most girls of that time she could have passed as 19, making her birthday 1864. Her mom could have gone along with it because it would mean more help for her, once she married her future husband.

However, a newspaper account of her death in a house fire in 1911 lists has as born in 1869. The gravestone also says this. This means she was only 14 when married and 11 when a servant for that family. (Given the culture of that day the marriage thing seems odder to me - girls were employed as house servants at times at that age, and census takers had to guess sometimes.)

It should be noted that the 1910 census lists her at age 40, but also pushes their marriage ahead a few years, saying they'd been married 24 years (so since 1886).

Ideas as to when she was really born? I'm inclined to take the 1869 date as verbatim, even though the family was somewhat hysterical after the fire, only because there really isn't a reason to get that wrong in both the paper *and* the death notice. Her age is also correct if she was born in late 1869, after all, and there's the headstone.

But, what do you generally do when two vital records disagree? Just go with the most logical thing by piecing together other clues like last census, possibility of lying about age, etc. (it's not like there were photo IDs in 1883), etc.

(Just had another thought - if she was hired out as a house servant as a preteen, a caring family might decide to place her with one in which she'd be sure to have not only a parents but a nice big sister figure. I don't know if that sounds too modern for some 1870s immigrants, but it sounds very much like the normal care and compassion our family would take. :-))

Re: How do you handle suspected but unconfirmed family links?

Hopeful_Helper — 2013-03-25 14:50:14Z

Some genealogy software allows you to mark entries as unproved. Some people don't add entries to their tree until those entries have been proved.

HH

Re: Citing Wikipedia?

Hopeful_Helper — 2013-03-25 14:48:06Z

Well you can cite any source, no matter how inaccurate, but is that how you want to build your tree and do your family research? Even Wikipedia cites sources. You could use those citations to dig further. If you have an historical figure in your tree, surely you can find better sources than Wikipedia.

HH

Citing Wikipedia?

cjlacour — 2013-03-24 15:24:11Z

Any thoughts on this in the context of more historical figures?

How do you handle suspected but unconfirmed family links?

DenverDetective — 2013-03-24 03:33:21Z

I am working on several difficult lines from the early 1800's, in the U.S.

In each case, I have a known individual, and am trying to link the person to their parents, or to children, siblings - etc.

For example, a William Pettit who married Jemima Sherrow. William died young, and I have no solid link to his parents. I have found several families who may be tied to him, two of which may be his parents.

When I enter these possible parents into my genealogy software, what is the best way to handle a possible relationship?

Would you handle the records differently if it was a probable relationship, where several pieces of data pointed to one particular family as being the correct parents?

If I do not enter these people as William's parents - is there a way to show a suspected relationship? If I have more than one possible set of parents, how can I track this and keep them straight as I search for confirming facts?

Please tell me I'm not the only one working with this right now - I have three such situations at the moment!

Re: BMD records and Family Trees (Public)

Hopeful_Helper — 2013-03-13 18:12:33Z

Use online family trees only as suggestions, never as fact.

HH

BMD records and Family Trees (Public)

Blindye — 2013-03-12 18:16:54Z

Hi - I regularly find entries in the Family Tree options, that match the names of the people I'm searching for. However I find that many of the individuals in these Trees simply have no official records backing up the validity of their entries.
Should I be taking these trees as definately correct as they are readily available, or are these Family Trees just fiction
Can anyone please advise??
Thanks

Re: How do you determine which source is correct. (If either is)

PBaukema — 2013-03-05 21:47:18Z

Primary documentation are birth, marriage, divorce and death records. Census records should be secondary because they may not even be a family member answering. Further removed are family trees because you have to judge the quality of the researcher. I had this happen when two people with the same name pass near each other and the wife of one is attributed to the other. The best way is to work backwards from the known but that isn't always possible. Saw Yvonne Bucher on your tree, I am a distant relative.
Regards, PAul

Re: Verify Information

timwescott66 — 2013-02-27 08:20:37Z

Hello

Thanks for your response. The information is coming from other people's family trees, but I do try and verify the information with official records. I haven't had time to go back and research all the 'suspect' entries since my original post with official records, so that'll be my next task.

I'm pretty new to this kind of stuff, so I'll keep your comments about other people's family tree in mind.

Thanks
Tim

Re: Verify Information

rickathedj — 2013-02-26 18:58:06Z

Are you finding this information in official records or in other people's family trees?

You'll hear a lot of people on here saying NEVER trust someone else's tree without verifying the information for yourself. But I figure if they have the sources and it checks out, then everything is good. If a tree has no sources whatsoever, I consider it suspect, but still might use it to give me a direction in which to search. Sometimes that's all you've got and you have to go chasing off after records that may or may not lead to your ancestors.

If the info you have is coming from official records such as the census, consider the possibility of human error. And remember that sometimes the very literacy of some census takers has been called into question.

Have you considered searching with an eye towards being able to rule one of them out rather than in? I'm stuck on my great grandfather and have a number of possibilities for his parents. I look not only for records that will connect them, but also for things that will rule them out. Sometimes the latter is easier, and I think that every person I can rule out brings me a step closer to finding the right one.

Verify Information

timwescott66 — 2013-02-25 15:43:50Z

I'm compiling a family tree for my son-in-law and have come across some information that doesn't really make sense.

While finding his ancestors there is a change in spelling of the surname - from Base to Bayse. While this is not exactly unsurprising as typo's can happen, I can also find the person spelt both ways, but the spouses have different surnames even though the christian name is the same. The details of both Base or Bayse are the same, eg. DoB, death, siblings, etc, but which one should I use?

At the moment the details have been merged so one is preferred and the other alternative.

Any advice appreciated.

How to Document a Historically Altered Census Location?

bdloveall — 2013-02-22 16:34:38Z

I have several ancestors living in Indian Territory around 1900 and I'm not sure how to document it.

For example: Goforth family is living in "Township 8 North, Range 26 East, Choctaw Nation, Indian Territory"; however, after looking at old maps, I understand the location is more specifically "Cameron" in what will become Oklahoma, where the location will be known as "Cameron, Le Flore County, Oklahoma".

How should this be written to meet standard genealogical style? Should it be:
Cameron, Choctaw Nation (Le Flore County), Indian Territory (Oklahoma), USA?

Should it simply state the post-statehood name with some kind of notation that explains what it was known at the time they were living there?

Thank you for any insight. I hope I am asking in the right direction!

Brandon

Please transcribe Bible family record entries

ashburton13 — 2013-01-28 13:01:18Z

I know that some people attempt to obtain Bibles with family records to rehome, which is such a great thing to do.

Others have old bibles in their family, or copies of family records from bibles.

I just would like to put out the request to please transcribe the bible entries (along with pertinent information like bible publisher, publishing date, any other notes in bible, etc) and post to a site like ancestry so that other descendants have a chance to see them.

You may also want to send a copy to pertinent historical societies. For example, NEHGS in Boston has a bible family record collection project- just send in copies. Maine Genealogical Society is also interested in printing Maine-related bible family records in their journal. It's a great way to find other descendants, and also to preserve the records for future generations.

So often when the bibles are not transcribed, they are lost or damaged when in a private collection, or heirs have no interest and throw out the bibles, and the information is lost forever.

Re: Check, check and check again

SusanAllan49 — 2013-01-11 18:59:42Z

I agree - I always try really hard to couch my comments in a friendly, constructive manner, as the last thing I want to do is discourage people but it is amazing how frequently some folk do not seem to want to know the truth. I believe it is totally inexperience and that Ancestry should take a more proactive approach to highlighting the need to check, check and check again!

Re: Check, check and check again

rickathedj — 2013-01-11 18:21:58Z

I think that logically, it must boil down to inexperience. I mean, why would anyone put in wrong information by choice? It would be nice for the rest of us if Ancestry required the completion of a certain number of tutorials before one could start a family tree. It would also be nice if every time you went to add something, a series of pops up appeared that advised people to check, double check, and triple check before adding. But I'm not sure how practical that would be, and it probably wouldn't be too good for business.

My biggest gripe isn't wrong information, its people who argue with you when you SHOW them where they got something wrong.

Rick

Re: Check, check and check again

1_johnwil — 2013-01-11 17:19:08Z

Well, thanks guys, I'm glad other people get annoyed like I do!
Susan, I sympathise with you, it is frustrating to find that someone has claimed your ancestor, and then tied them up with incorrect information.
I had a problem finding an 'Alfred' and located about 6 possibilities in the given area. It took me several days to follow each one of them through Census records/BDM's and anything else I could find, to eliminate those who clearly turned out to be 'the wrong one' - finding them married to the 'wrong' woman, or turning up where they definitely shouldn't be etc. Time consuming but I got the result and got 'Alfred'
People seem to find it all too easy to 'grab' at the first likely person that comes along, - yes, it is laziness, and carelessness and I think sometimes, inexperience.
Ok end of rant for today !!

Re: Check, check and check again

rickathedj — 2013-01-10 18:31:07Z

Yes researcher ignorance. It happens when anything gets mass marketed to the general public. The blame returns where previously stated.

Re: Check, check and check again

Hopeful_Helper — 2013-01-10 17:38:39Z

Don't blame Ancestry, blame researcher ignorance or laziness. Ancestry very clearly states in several places that shaking leaves are just hints.

HH

Opinion on evidence or lack thereof...

SFarmer9302 — 2013-01-10 17:07:07Z

I have two problems with connecting relatives:

Problem 1: Connecting my great-great grandmother, Augusta Gilder to her father, James B. Horne.

a) I have been told by a cousin that my great-great grandmother was Augusta Horne. He was told this information by his father and grandfather. My cousin's grandfather was told the information by his grandmother (my great-great-great grandmother, Mary Smyrl Horne, widow of James B. Horne). Mary also passed in information about her husband James, who was killed during the Civil War.

b) Census records show Mary Smyrl Horne and her husband James B. Horne in the 1860 Census (Wilkinson County, GA) and Mary Smyrl Horne as a widow in 1870 (Wilkinson County, GA) list an Augustus A. Horne-male, but no daughter named Augusta. My assumption is that this was an error by the census taker. Augusta's brother James is also listed as Jane-female in the 1860 census.

c) I have yet to find any records that list Augusta other than the 1880 census (Pulaski County, GA) and 1900 census (Wilkinson County, GA) which show her as Augusta Gilder, living with her children including my great-grandfather in the 1900 Census. There is no death record or known tombstone for Augusta nor have I been able to find a marriage for Augusta Horne to James Gilder. There are no Horne relatives near Augusta in either census. There is a picture of Mary Smyrl Horne with her granddaughter Dora Horne Faulk and grandson William Coleman Horne, both children of Augusta Gilder. The picture and the identification of Mary comes from the William Coleman side. The Gilder surname was dropped for an unknown reason.

---Is this enough evidence to state that Augusta Gilder is Augusta Horne, who is listed as Augustus A.?

Problem 2: Connection James B. Horn to his probable father, Michael Horne.

1) I have eliminated all the Horne families in the area of Wilkinson County, GA as being related to James B. After many years, I learned acquired two pieces of information. First, James B. Horne married Mary Smyrl in Russell County, AL (per Mary's application for a Widow's Civil War pension filed in Twiggs County, GA). Second, a great-granddaughter of one Michael Horne, wrote down some genealogical information in 1930 about the Horne family and the Smyrl family.

A) The journal states that Jimmie Horne was the son of Michael Horne and Miss Thompson and listed their children. The 1850 census lists all of the children listed in the journal, but does NOT list my ancestor James B., but rather a Jane-female, who is about the right age to be James. Michael Horne (Hearnes) lived in Russell County, AL in 1850 census. Michael appears to have been missed in 1840 and the 1830 census for him only lists one daughter.

B) The journal then talks about the Smyrl family and mentions a Mary Smyrl who married Jimmie Horne. She then goes on to mention that Mary's brother James T. Smyrl married Martha Horne, sister of Jimmie. Martha does appear in the 1850 census in the household of Michael Horne.

C) I have been able to verify all of the information provided in the journal via census, birth, death and marriage records. The writer was surprisingly well informed with only a few minor mistakes, such as listing one women's husband as George Jarrell instead of Henry Jarrell. Or stating that James B. lived near Cochran, Pulaski, GA rather than in Wilkinson County, Ga.

D) I have not yet been able to locate any evidence in state or local records that connect Michael and James.

E) Michael had a brother named James Booth Horne, he also named a daughter Augusta/Augustine.

---Is this sufficient evidence to assume that James was the son of Michael or do I need to keep digging?

Thanks,
Sandra Horne Farmer

You can email me directly at sandraf9302 at hotmail.com

Re: Check, check and check again

rickathedj — 2013-01-09 22:01:40Z

I believe some of the fault lays squarely at the feet of Ancestry. They tout the shaky leaves without mentioning that they should not be taken as gospel. I spent almost a year looking at shaky leaves for one person in my family tree because I knew some of them were correct and some were not. But too many people see those pesky little leaves and figure if Ancestry put them there, they must be right.

Re: Check, check and check again

SusanAllan49 — 2013-01-09 18:15:21Z

Delighted to read your post! I have been getting increasingly annoyed and frustrated by folk doing exactly what you describe. I have had examples in my trees of relatives being appropriated by someone simply because the name in a census return is the same - yet a cross reference to a BMD would show that it cannot possibly be the same person. One such example was my husband's great grandfather who lived and died in Scotland and yet appears in a family tree in Australia and dying 30 years earlier!. I even found the correct person and supplied a copy of the Marriage to help the person on the right track but he has not changed his tree. I do not understand people who do this - it is unhelpful to themselves and everyone else! It is just laziness!

Re: identifying bigamy-need your advice/research skills

couponcoconut — 2012-12-20 16:29:28Z

I think I'm going to have to see if I can get my hands on the actual record for the marriage between Sarah and Ralph. I can't see any other way to shed light on this.

As far as I can see, Ralph is in the 1891 census. He appears to be boarding. So, the marriage took place while he was living. There's no sign of his daughter, Mary J.

I keep hoping that I'll just find that there's another Sarah Rice and that I have the wrong Armstrongs. I suppose it's possible, though not likely.

This situation is very interesting. I now have a possible explanation for why my grandmother had no idea that she was half English, which I discovered when I started doing my tree. She believed that she was 100% Scottish. It's very likely that this side of the family was closemouthed to hide its secrets.

I'm still looking into this. I have yet to find anything that I haven't indicated here. If anyone has any thoughts or info, I'm all ears.

Re: identifying bigamy-need your advice/research skills

timtracker — 2012-12-19 06:52:37Z

The 1881 census shows her as 21, making her born in 1860, rather than 1862. Of course, such dates can be wrong by a few years, but are you sure this has not mis-led you ?

The marriage between Ralph Armstrong and Sarah Rice appears to occur in Weardale, Durham, NOT Northumberland. Again, this may or may not be important.

But such details can be important in finally determining what happened.

As for bigamy, the obvious step is tracing the death of Ralph. If he dies sometime around the date the baby is born, assuming this is his estranged wife, that might explain why they waited until after the baby was born. Unfortunately, as you probably know, there is no Ralph Armstrong who dies in 1881/2 who is the right age on British records. You might try tracing immigration records, but that is a long shot I suspect.

Most likely, if the two children were actually the same child, they would have simply started calling her by a new name, without any formal record. I think that this would be quite legal. However, I think this un-likely. There is a gap of about two and a half years between the two births. A bit difficult to explain that away should an inquiry be made. I really doubt that a new birth would be formally registered unless it was a real new baby. That would be another crime in itself, adding to the chance of discovery.

Great story, but I am never sure if such things are a blessing or a curse as far as researching them goes. Let us know if you get anywhere with it.

identifying bigamy-need your advice/research skills

couponcoconut — 2012-12-18 17:50:07Z

I posted this in the surname forum a few weeks ago, but I'm thinking that it might be better here. I would love your opinions on the situation (and possibly your research skills). That doesn't require having anything to do with the Armstrong family itself, just genealogical research skills.

I have a bit of a puzzle on my hands. I'm hoping you all can give me some insight or advice.

It would appear as if my great great grandmother, Sarah Rice (born around 1862-Durham, England), might have been a bigamist. It seems as if she married Ralph Armstrong in 1880 Northumberland, England. It then looks like she ran away with his brother, George Armstrong (born around 1854, NorthumberlandEngland), in 1882 to Scotland. They had a baby out of wedlock (Edith Armstrong-born 17 Aug 1882) and married one month later, both in Glasgow.

I have a copy of the birth registry for Edith which states her parents as George Armstrong and Sarah Rice. I have a marriage record for Sarah and George. This lists his parents as Joseph Armstrong and Mary Lawther or Lowther (this might be a red herring-explain later). It lists her parents as Lawrence Rice and Mary Norwood.

I can see Sarah on the English census for 1881, apparently married to Ralph. I also see George living with his parents at that time. I cannot find either of them, or their daughter, on any census after that (in Scotland or in England).

Originally I had found a tree indicating that George's father was married to a Mary Haining. I put this on my tentative tree. When I found George and Sarah's marriage record, I amended the last name as it was given on the record-from Haining to Lawther/Lowther. I CAN find a record indicating that a Joseph Armstrong possibly married a woman by that name, but the marriage to Mary Haining is much better documented.

In the 1881 census (which has Sarah married to Ralph), there's an infant daughter, named Mary J, in the house as well. I'm currently trying to search to find out where she ended up, as she's not on the 1891 census with her father. I've played with the idea that she went to another family, that she died, or that Edith Armstrong is really Mary J. I can't get over the idea that it would not have been impossible to register her as a brand new baby.

I contacted the owner of the tree I'd connected to and chatted with them. We both became suspicious that something was going on with this family. We both wonder if the different last name of the mother was just an attempt to hide themselves.

I'm pretty new to this, so it's very possible that I've just made a mistake somewhere. Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated.

Check, check and check again

1_johnwil — 2012-12-14 16:56:08Z

May I remind everyone out there how important it is to check your information, cross reference it if at all possible and always look at the original document if you can.("view the original") I have been doing family research for more years than I care to think about, (since the days before 'Ancestry', when the only way to search was to go to the relevant record office and pore over dusty volumes and microfilm) and I am still amazed at how many people 'publish' their information on sites such as this one - clearly without having confirmed that its correct. I cite several trees on this site which I have had cause to look at, with dates of death for people who I have found alive on the following Census, 'births' to women who would definitely be 'past it' and so on. Errors in names, such as taking the transcribed Census entry as gospel, and not checking to see what it really said - the list goes on, and some of the mistakes I have seen are just carelessness.
Take some time to review your information and check dates, and check and check again - things are not always as they seem.

Re: a general question about family history

edgewarewolf2004 — 2012-12-06 22:44:38Z

thank you both for the reply.i will keep in mind what you both said and again thank you for taking the time to reply.

Re: a general question about family history

thomasker2 — 2012-12-06 20:03:04Z

I’m not related to any member of this family.

1940 is the last available census at this time.

Facts you should know about the early census records -
All census records [1790 – 1840] prior to the 1850 census ONLY listed the head of household; whether male or female.

NO specific age was stated for any family member
NO place of birth was stated – city, state, or country
NO city, town, or village is stated – only the county; however some census takers listed the township
NO street address was stated
NO marital status was stated – single, married, widowed, or divorced
NO family relationship was stated – brother, sister, cousin, son, daughter, wife, inlaw, etc…
NO occupation was stated
NO parental birthplaces are stated
NO race was stated [but assume “white”]

1850, 1860 & 1870 census records do not show family relationships, marital status or parental birthplaces.

Step children are not enumerated as “step” children
Adopted children are not enumerated as “adopted”
Grand children are not enumerated as “grand children”
Orphaned children were not enumerated as "orphan"

1850 is the 1st census that shows all family members

1880 is the 1st census that shows parental birthplaces and family relationships +++

You should also know that there is a 20 yr gap in the census records 1880 - 1900. 1890 census was destroyed by fire in the 1920's.

Also, every person must age either 9 or 10 yrs depending on his/her DOB. Anyone aging more than 10 yrs is lying!

If you are unsure of the parents in a family, follow the children from one census to the next. If there is a divorce, the children usually stayed with the mother.

PPL frequently flip/flopped btw their 1st & middle names...

Census records do not record the specific locality of a person's birth; Only the state or country is recorded.

Each census has it's own calendar year. NOT the traditional Jan - Dec period. Read the title boxes at the top of each census.

Re: a general question about family history

willj1111 — 2012-12-06 15:59:05Z

I have been frustrated with the same problem. I find that you have to really use it as a logic problem. I try to find verification from different sites. The Familysearch.org site is wonderful also and they are free, they connect with Ancestry.com. Many times the census takers missed the lines and wrote names incorrectly. I had a relative that listed his dead wife on the census not sure why. Its a big puzzle, but when you finally find an answer it can be really exciting.

a general question about family history

edgewarewolf2004 — 2012-12-06 14:05:05Z

my question is this-when I an doing my research on someone I come across a name with the same information but sometimes with a different parent or a couple of different siblings.I guess what i am really asking is how do you know
if that is really your family or the other one is.I have come across this several times. when i start getting down to family born before 1900 or even before 1800 i have found this to be true.
just wondering if i am the only one this has happened to or if someone else has had this problem and if so what solution did you use.any help will do.i did not list the persons name because their are a few.I do read the post in the threads for help as well as done online research and also have gone to the library.thank you

Re: which source to trust for death date?

BryanMehn — 2012-11-26 15:45:16Z

Tombstones can be really bad, I've seen ones that are off on the DOD by a couple of years. Remember they are not made the same day someone died.

You would need to look at the death record and see who reported the death, that will give an indication as to how reliable it is. If it was a priest or direct family member I would trust it more then the neighbor.

Re: which source to trust for death date?

rickathedj — 2012-11-26 01:37:49Z

Any chance of finding an obituary?

which source to trust for death date?

SRois — 2012-11-25 21:19:57Z

I have two different death dates for my ancestor -- one carved on his tombstone (27 Nov) and one from his death record (4 Nov). His death record appears to have been delayed, since the "Date of Report" is the following January, which would lead me to believe the tombstone would be more accurate. But I don't know how quickly after his death he was buried, since it was November in a northern rural area. So which should I accept as accurate, or which documents do I seek as a kind of tiebreaker?

Re: Official Vital Record Transcriptions

Hopeful_Helper — 2012-11-25 13:18:37Z

Doubtful anyone on these boards can answer in an official capacity. Why not just ask someone at the offices that provided the documents?

Official Vital Record Transcriptions

HeatherGraceHaley — 2012-11-25 13:17:09Z

I recently requested several vital records from state offices and county clerks:
Marriage Record (1963), Bernalillo County, New Mexico - County Clerk
Marriage Record (1895), Grayson County, Texas - County Clerk
Death Certificate (1961), Tarrant County, Texas
Death Certificate (1967), Hinsdale County, Colorado - State Registrar

What I received appears to be an electronic transcriptions overlaid on the original document. I am concerned about this practice losing clues and introducing errors in my documentation efforts.

Is anyone else receiving transcriptions instead of copies of original documents?

Does anyone know why this might be happening?

Is there a polite way to ask an official entity for an exact copy of the original?

Thank you.

Re: How important are vital records

rickathedj — 2012-11-08 12:39:58Z

Your ancestor who was married to 2 different women by the same name is funny. I have a similar problem. I have two brothers, one of whom was my great grandfather, who both married women named Mary. I found a lot of church records for one of them, but it appears they are not for my great grandmother.

Re: How important are vital records

cyndi308 — 2012-11-05 17:32:13Z

Yep yep. I have noticed the famous female ancestor slowed aging trick. Have also found the male ancestor suddenly being a bit older trick too. Funny how they are just exactly old enough to enlist in the armed forces when they want to go.

On the other hand, sometimes you get surprised. One of my relatives was from Slovakia/Hungary and he lived in Chicago and was married to a woman named Joanna from Germany. He had a child from a previous marriage and they had a child together. I found them in several censuses and on other docs like passport applications. But I really didn't get why her age changed so much, like by 10 years or more.

Then I found her death certificate. And a marriage certificate for her a few months later. Whaaaaaaa???? Turns out my relative was married to two different women named Joanna from Germany! The first one died shortly after giving birth so he married again pretty quickly and the new Joanna raised the child as if she were her own (meaning she treated her like her own, not that she pretended she was her biological child).

This is part of why I record every fact and every source. Even things that seem out of place or that are duplicates.

Cyndi

Re: How important are vital records

rickathedj — 2012-11-05 17:23:47Z

I don't treat census records as gospel, not only for the reasons you gave, but also for the fact that the census takers themselves were also a bit questionable. Plus you never really know who gave the census taker the information. In this case however, it actually helped me zero in on more exact info.

Likewise, death certificates are great for the date of death, but the rest I like to have another document to back them up. After all, that is one document where you know for a fact that the person who actually knew the answers wasn't filling out the form.

The older the people are, the less credence I give to the census. I have one ancestor who over the course of her lifetime shaved 15 years off of her age.

Re: sourcing via another's family tree

rickathedj — 2012-11-05 17:17:37Z

Census records are kind of a bad example to use for this discussion as they are available from so many places. But as I said, I do tend to save image files and transcripts to my own computer, along with the info on thew web site where I found them. Its always better if you have a source for them that is more or less permanent: Ancestry or Family Search for example.

I wouldn't be inclined to crop any of the images if they are documents. You never know when something you cropped away might be important. Of course if you want to crop a copy of the original image thats ok, but I would keep the original version uncut, just in case.

I totally agree that you don't need to go out and snap your own photos of cemeteries, etc when you can find them online. The polite thing to do is ask permission. Some people get snippy if you don't, but I'm not one of them. I feel pretty stoked when I see people using my photos of our mutual distant ancestors. But when you ask permission, give them a little background on who you are and how you are related as they might have more information for you.

Re: sourcing via another's family tree

SoToLuna1 — 2012-11-05 16:29:44Z

I understand that while it is good to do one's own research and cite, for example, a census document, it seems like re-inventing the wheel if a website has the exact same ancestor's census record. Perhaps the thing to do is ask permission to copy the document and post it own one's own site or home computer with a note about the permission granted and possibly a link to the original site. Even if the original site moves at least one has covered the basis. It just seems to me that the time to find the orginal census document, crop and adjust the information you want to post is creating work that already has been done.

An another example might be a picture of a cemetary sign. Does one really need to either take another picture of the sign oneself or ask for a "photo request" when one can just as easily ask permission and save all that extra effort. Better I think to use that time to locate information that one doesn't yet have.

Re: How important are vital records

cyndi308 — 2012-11-05 14:47:54Z

"Almost everything I have on on of my great grandfathers says he was born in 1850. But I see him listed as 3 years old in the 1850 census."

Usually I'd say, ignore the census, they are often wrong about dates like that, the rest of the docs are your evidence. But no one, not even a distant neighbor, is going to mistake an infant for a 3 year old. Unless there was some confusion with which child was which (another possibility is the 3 year old died after the census was taken and mom was already pregnant and passed down the name).

"I find that the closest document to the date of a particular event is usually the most reliable."

I use that rule too, though it's not perfect. With the Census, sometimes the later ones are more accurate because my ancestors were immigrants from non-English speaking countries and, even if their recall didn't improve with time, their conversational skills with census takers did.

Cyndi

Re: How important are vital records

rickathedj — 2012-11-05 13:55:48Z

Funny you should mention that. Almost everything I have on on of my great grandfathers says he was born in 1850. But I see him listed as 3 years old in the 1850 census. I find that the closest document to the date of a particular event is usually the most reliable.

Re: sourcing via another's family tree

rickathedj — 2012-11-05 13:52:45Z

I don't know if you would consider the Illinois Genweb site as private or not, but I had a couple of my source citations from it disappear. Apparently they reorganized the site and the list of marriages were moved to another address within the site. That's why I now save the images of documents, and/or copy and paste transcriptions to my own computer.

I do agree that personal genealogy sites shouldn't be considered as reliable in that they can disappear completely.

As to asking permission, its always a good idea to contact the person who owns the page because they might have more info that hasn't made it to the page yet. They usually do give permission, but I don't think its actually required as long as you aren't going to profit from the material. I'm no lawyer but I think that would fall under the category of "fair use." But still the polite thing to do is ask.